Dataset Information

End of life in the critically ill patient: evaluation of experience of end of life by caregivers (EOLE study).

ABSTRACT:

Background

The death rate in intensive care units (ICUs) can reach 20%. More than half occurs after a decision of care withholding/withdrawal. We aimed at describing and evaluating the experience of ICU physicians and nurses involved in the end-of-life (EOL) procedure. Primary objective was the evaluation of the experience of EOL assessed by the CAESAR questionnaire. Secondary objectives were to describe factors associated with a low or high score and to examine the association between Numeric Analogic Scale and quality of EOL.

Methods

Consecutive adult patients deceased in 52 ICUs were included between April and June 2018. Characteristics of patients and caregivers, therapeutics and care involved after withdrawal were recorded. CAESAR score included 15 items, rated from 1 (traumatic experience) to 5 (comforting experience). The sum was rated from 15 to 75 (the highest, the best experience). Numeric Analogic Scale was rated from 0 (worst EOL) to 10 (optimal EOL).

Results

Five hundred and ten patients were included, 403 underwent decision of care withholding/withdrawal, and among them 362 underwent effective care withdrawal. Among the 510 patients, mean CAESAR score was 55/75 (± 6) for nurses and 62/75 (± 5) for physicians (P < 0.001). Mean Numeric Analogic Scale was 8 (± 2) for nurses and 8 (± 2) for physicians (P = 0.06). CAESAR score and Numeric Analogic Scale were significantly but weakly correlated. They were significantly higher for both nurses and physicians if the patient died after a decision of withholding/withdrawal. In multivariable analysis, among the 362 patients with effective care withdrawal, disagreement on the intensity of life support between caregivers, non-invasive ventilation and monitoring and blood tests the day of death were associated with lower score for nurses. For physicians, cardiopulmonary resuscitation the day of death was associated with lower score in multivariable analysis.

Conclusion

Experience of EOL was better in patients with withholding/withdrawal decision as compared to those without. Our results suggest that improvement of nurses' participation in the end-of-life process, as well as less invasive care, would probably improve the experience of EOL for both nurses and physicians. Registration: ClinicalTrial.gov: NCT03392857.

SUBMITTER: SRLF Trial Group

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8626545 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe objective of the current study was to determine the best set of predictors of psychological disorders, regrets, health-related quality of life, and mental health function among bereaved caregivers of patients with cancer, thereby identifying promising targets for interventions to improve bereavement adjustment.MethodsCoping with Cancer is a longitudinal study of patients with advanced cancer and their informal caregivers who were enrolled from 2002 to 2008. The main outcome measure was bereavement adjustment of 245 caregivers (eg, depression, anxiety, and regrets) 6 months after the loss of the patient. The Structured Clinical Interview of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders determined whether caregivers met the criteria for major depressive disorder or an anxiety disorder. Changes in health-related quality of life and mental health function from baseline to after the patient's death were assessed with the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form (SF-36).ResultsGreater than 50% of the caregivers reported regret about the cancer patient's end-of-life care; better patient quality of death (adjusted odds ratio, 0.77; 95% confidence interval, 0.67-0.88) reduced the risk of bereavement regret. The incidence of major depressive disorder or anxiety among the bereaved caregivers was 12.6% and was less likely for caregivers with better mental health before the loss of the patient (adjusted odds ratio, 0.03; 95% confidence interval, 0.004-0.25). Better patient quality of death also predicted improved caregiver health-related quality of life (adjusted standardized beta, .28; P < .001). The completion of a do-not-resuscitate order was found to be predictive of improved mental health from before the death of the patient to after the death (adjusted standardized beta, .29; P < .001).ConclusionsReducing caregiver distress, encouraging advance care planning by patients, and improving patients' quality of death appear to be promising targets of interventions to improve caregiver bereavement adjustment.

Project description:To investigate whether a novel acute care multipatient viewer (AMP), created with an understanding of clinician information and process requirements, could reduce time to clinical decision-making among clinicians caring for populations of acutely ill patients compared with a widely used commercial electronic medical record (EMR).DesignSingle center randomized crossover study.SettingQuaternary care academic hospital.SubjectsAttending and in-training critical care physicians, and advanced practice providers.InterventionsAMP.Measurements and main resultsWe compared ICU clinician performance in structured clinical task completion using two electronic environments-the standard commercial EMR (Epic) versus the novel AMP in addition to Epic. Twenty subjects (10 pairs of clinicians) participated in the study. During the study session, each participant completed the tasks on two ICUs (7-10 beds each) and eight individual patients. The adjusted time for assessment of the entire ICU and the adjusted total time to task completion were significantly lower using AMP versus standard commercial EMR (-6.11; 95% CI, -7.91 to -4.30 min and -5.38; 95% CI, -7.56 to -3.20 min, respectively; p < 0.001). The adjusted time for assessment of individual patients was similar using both the EMR and AMP (0.73; 95% CI, -0.09 to 1.54 min; p = 0.078). AMP was associated with a significantly lower adjusted task load (National Aeronautics and Space Administration-Task Load Index) among clinicians performing the task versus the standard EMR (22.6; 95% CI, -32.7 to -12.4 points; p < 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference in adjusted total errors when comparing the two environments (0.68; 95% CI, 0.36-1.30; p = 0.078).ConclusionsWhen compared with the standard EMR, AMP significantly reduced time to assessment of an entire ICU, total time to clinical task completion, and clinician task load. Additional research is needed to assess the clinicians' performance while using AMP in the live ICU setting.